Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aeolun | Hacker News Reader

Our company does regular phishing attacks against our own team, which apparently gets us a noteworthy 90% ‘not-click’ rate (don’t quote me on numbers).

Never mind that that 10% is still 1500 people xD

It’s gone so far that they’re now sending them from our internal domains, so when the banner to warn me it was an external email wasn’t there, I also got got.

View on HN

I used to work for an anti-phishing focused brand protection firm, we provide training and testing to third parties and heavily, aggressively dog-fooded our own products.

So, of course, we got to a point as a company where no one opened any email or clicked any link ever. This caused HR pain every year during open-enrollment season, for other annual trainings, etc.

At one point they started putting “THIS IS NOT A PHISH” in big red letters at the top of the email body to get folks to open emails and handle paperwork.

So then our trainers stole the “NOT A PHISH” header and got almost the entire company with that one email.

At a previous position, I had a rather strained relationship with the IT department - they were very slow to fill requests and maintained an extremely locked down windows server that we were supposed to develop for. It wasn't the worse environment, but the constant red tape was pretty frustrating.

I got got when they sent out a phishing test email disguised as a survey of user satisfaction with the IT department. Honestly I couldn't even be mad about it - it looked like all those other sketchy corporate surveys complete with a link to a domain similar to Qualtrics (I think it was one or two letters off).

TBH this is probably the best argument for actually conducting phishing pentests. It shuts up the technical users who think they're too smart to need the handrails and safety nets that the IT department set up for the rest of the average plebs who work there.

(Speaking as one of the technical users here. Of course, it wouldn't happen to ME! :P )

If you never read your emails, it's hard for them to get you with phishing emails.

if you've got email filters set up that sort emails by (dkim-verified) sender into folders, phishing becomes immediate obvious as you start to wonder why it isn't sorted into the right folder.

I'd heard that the spammers are better at using DKIM correctly than legitimate users nowadays... ?

I dunno, if I get phishing emails in my inbox I feel like a certain team has already failed. We have a firewall that blocks anything non- approved. Do the same thing with emails.

My former company would send out rewards as a thank you to employees. It was basically a “click here to receive your free gift!” email. I kept telling the security team that this was a TERRIBLE president but it continued none the less. The first time I got one I didn’t open it for ages, even after confirming the company was real. It was only after like the 5th nagging email that I asked security about it and they confirmed that it was in fact a real thing the company was using. I got a roomba, a nice outdoor chair, and some sweet headphones. =)

I'm pretty sure you meant "terrible precedent" but I giggled a bit thinking "yeah the company president is pretty bad for forcing this".

I kinda want to start using "setting a terrible president" now and see who calls me out on it. :D

There are SO MANY terrible practices like this carried out by companies big enough to know better. From registering new domains for email addresses (for a while a BigCorp customer of ours had a mix of @bigcorp.com and @bigcorp2.com email addresses, how the hell is any user meant to guess that MediumCorp hasn't also spun up a mediumcorp2.com mail server?!) to FedEx sending "click this link to pay import duties" texts from random unaffiliated (probably personal?) mobile numbers as their primary method of contacting recipients for import duties... The internet (like credit cards) is built on and around trust, and it shouldn't be.

Congrats on the loot, though! Your former company can't be all bad. ;)

>mix of @bigcorp.com and @bigcorp2.com

This pisses me off when the company I work for as a website for the new application for the week. I couldn't even begin to tell you how many websites we have. They don't have a list of them anywhere.

I'm so surprised by this, not because I don't think that many people would fall for a phishing attempt, but because the corporate "training" phishing emails are so glaringly obvious that I think it does a disservice to the people being tested. I feel like it gives a false impression you can detect phishing via vibes when the real ones will be much stealthier.

Are your phishing emails good? If so if you don't mind name dropping the company so I can make a pitch to switch to them.

Like many other scams, an “obvious” entry point can be very useful as it makes victims self-selected, and a lot more likely to follow to completion. Even if the opportunity cost of phishing is low, having nobody report the attempt makes for a longer window of operation.

I had the opposite problem recently, I got a work phishing email from netflix.com . Now I still shouldn’t have clicked on it, netflix isn’t attached to my work email, but you couldn’t actually send a phishing email from account@netflix.com, they had to give access to our inboxes so the phishing company could manually drop it into our inboxes.

>> so when the banner to warn me it was an external email

These are so obviously useless. When the majority of your email has a warning banner it stops to be any sort of warning. It's like being at "code orange" for 20 years after 9/11; no-one maintained "heightened security awareness" for decades, it just became something else to filter.

> When the majority of your email has a warning banner it stops to be any sort of warning.

All they've done is teach me to spot the phishing tests, because our email is configured to let the test bypass the banner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com